ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

McCaskill Defends Vote To Hurt Sick Kids By Saying The League Of Women Voters Are ‘Bad Guys’

By Brad Johnson on May 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), after a recent vote to protect coal polluters at the expense of children’s health, is now attacking the League of Women Voters. The 91-year-old good-government organization is running television spots that hold McCaskill and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) accountable for voting to block enforcement of Clean Air Act rules that limit greenhouse pollution, threatening the hundreds of thousands of children with asthma in their states. Watch the McCaskill ad:

Brown attacked the League of Women Voters for partisan “demagoguery.” Now McCaskill is also on the attack, accusing the league of being “bad guys,” a “tacky” front group “hiding donors behind the cloak of their good name”:

McCaskill also took aim at the League of Women Voters, who she said is “fronting for somebody who ran the ad.” “At a minimum, I think the League of Women Voters should not hide behind Citizens United and should be transparent about who’s paying for the ad,” McCaskill said. “I think that’s really tacky for an organization who’s prided itself on transparency and good government, for them to become part of the bad guys who are hiding donors behind the cloak of their good name.”

“These are our ads,” League of Women Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara told Politico. “This is about the issue of public health and the public knows who is speaking. We’ve stood behind and fought for the Clean Air Act for 40 years. At issue is Sen. McCaskill’s vote, which has endangered the public health.”

Related Posts

Climate Progress

Breaking: Socolow reaffirms 2004 ‘wedges’ paper, urges aggressive low-carbon deployment ASAP

By Joe Romm on May 18, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Still asserts “existing technologies could affordably limit warming”

In 2004, Princeton Profs Socolow and Pacala published a paper in Science, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies.”  The abstract read:

Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.

Figure 2I spoke to Socolow today at length, and he stands behind every word of that — including the carefully-worded title.  Indeed, if Socolow were king, he told me, he’d start deploying some 8 wedges immediately. A wedge is a strategy and/or technology that over a period of a few decades ultimately reduces projected global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year (see Princeton website here).

Socolow told me we “need a rising CO2 price” that gets to a serious level in 10 years.  What is serious?   “$50 to $100 a ton of CO2.”

You’d never know any of that from reading the false narrative industrial complex today.  They jumped all over a piece in National Geographic News by a reporter who apparently heard a recent talk of Socolow’s, but perhaps didn’t quite understand precisely what Socolow meant.

Socolow was not disavowing his original analysis in the least — nor providing any comfort to the do-little breakthrough bunch.  Quite the reverse.  He thinks they are members of a “Cargo Cult” waiting for “pie in the sky” answers (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“).

UPDATE:  This post has been updated to included comments by Socolow.  Also, Socolow sent me (and Revkin) a long reply to the various pieces published, which I reprint in full at the end.

Read more

Politics

Sponsor Of South Carolina Anti-Sharia Law Claims 99% Of Terrorist Acts Committed By Muslims

By Lee Fang on May 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm

At least a dozen states have proposed nearly identical laws designed to ban “Sharia law” in American courts. In South Carolina — despite the testimony of a law professor noting there is no evidence of Muslim traditions being imposed in judicial settings — a group of legislators have joined the anti-Sharia bandwagon and offered a bill. Earlier this month, ThinkProgress sat down with State Sen. Mike Fair (R-SC), the chief sponsor of the anti-Sharia legislation, to hear his views on the issue.

Fair explained that although his inspiration for the bill stemmed from his fear of Muslim influence in America, it would prohibit all foreign laws from being used in American courts. Fair said he began worrying about the Sharia after 9/11, and said that after reading several books on Islam, he came to the conclusion that “99 percent” of terrorist acts since the Beirut Marine barracks bombing were carried out by “Middle Eastern men who happen to be Muslim advocates of the Islam religion.” He went on to say that he would not want to hear the Muslim prayer call made from the building of the South Carolina capitol, and was troubled that some airport already “accomodate Islam” by storing prayer shawls for Muslim taxi drivers:

FAIR: Most, and when I say most, 99 percent probably, acts of terrorism around the world since at least since the killing of the two hundred plus Marines in Lebanon, in the car bomb or whatever it was, have occurred, all these acts of terrorism, have occurred at the hands of Middle Eastern men who happen to be Muslim advocates of the Islam religion. […]

The prayer shawls in such a public airport, built by public dollars at no cost to the people who want to store their prayer shawls. That’s a stretch by the way, but it is an accommodation of religion. Well anyway, that might help explain some of the thinking behind the popping up. Really the bill we have is an affirmation, it would be an exclamation point behind the law.

Watch it:

Fair’s calculation, that nearly every single act of terrorism for the past couple of decades was committed by Muslim men, is off base. In reality, in the last ten years alone, nearly twice as many terrorist plots were hatched by non-Muslims in America than by Muslims.

Even Fair admits that his bill doesn’t actually change anything and his examples of the Sharia issue are incredibly flimsy. Rather than protecting Americans from some type of creeping religion problem, Fair’s bill threatens to isolate and persecute a minority group that already faces regular smears from both public officials and right-wing media.

Click more for an extended transcript. Read more

Health

Health Insurers Undermine GOP’s ‘More Skin In The Game’ Theories

By Igor Volsky on May 18, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Americans may be postponing or forgoing medical care, but health insurance companies “continue to press for higher premiums,” the New York Times reported last Friday, severely complicating the GOP’s argument that giving seniors more “skin in the game” will lead individuals to use less care, spend less, and eventually lower health care costs. Jared Bernstein explains:

The story goes like this: insurers have been raising co-pays (the amount you contribute out-of-pocket when you get medical treatment) which should make people more cost conscious, and in fact, recession-battered families have been responding by seeking less care. So far, basic econ 101.

But despite the cost shifting and resulting demand contraction, premium prices have gone up as fast as ever. [...]

In competitive markets, sellers can’t typically set today’s prices based on where they expect demand to be in the future. If one of them did so, others would capture their market share by pricing based on current supply and demand conditions.

The dynamic should lead you to be particularly skeptical about plans that depend on private insurers responding to market signals (are you listening, Rep Ryan?). Republicans go on about how once everyone’s out there on their own shopping for insurance in unregulated, private markets, competition will drive prices down.

That’s how it works for bananas. It’s not the way it works for health insurance–folks are locked into plans through their jobs, there’s huge information disparities (their business model is to know who’s risky and avoid them), and most importantly, individuals have minuscule bargaining clout. So if you wanna shop for health insurance by yourself, just make sure your policy covers masochism.

Bernstein says that insurers are justifying their increases based on projects of future demand, but the other factor here may be the looming regulations that insurers will be expected to follow once the Affordable Care Act is more fully implemented in 2014. As incoming Federal Insurance Office director Michael T. McRaith put it to Kaiser Health News last month, insurers are using the interim period between passage of the Affordable Care Act and when most of the insurance regulations are enacted in 2014 to increase profits and force the sickest (and costliest) beneficiaries off their rolls. “They are using the absence of rate regulation to price out existing policyholders. That is designed to lead to the accumulation of capital, so that by 2014, when insurers have to cover everyone, they’ll be starting from a point of extreme financial strength,” McRaith explained.

This only goes to show that Congress will need to pass additional legislation to control health care premiums (Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has a bill that could help do just that), rather than offer legislation that would deregulate the industry and push individuals to try and find affordable coverage within it.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on May 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm

And now it’s even sooner:

— Neat interactive education tool.

— And another one.

— Teachers’ compensation shouldn’t be so backloaded.

— Vince Gay’s vision of change involves an awful lot of firing city commissioners only to promote their deputies.

— Amazed by the number of articles that don’t seem to realize that “serial philandering” and (alleged!) sexual assault are different things.

— At least Americans may now learn what the IMF is.

The only birthday song that matters. They Might Be Giants, “Older”.

Climate Progress

Senate Republicans cast “suicide pact” vote for Big Oil that expands drilling while weakening oversight

By Climate Guest Blogger on May 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm

It’s beginning to feel like a broken record – once again the GOP put its allegiances to Big Oil ahead of their responsibilities to the American people.  CAPAF’s Kiley Kroh has the story.

Yesterday 45 of 47 Senate Republicans filibustered an attempt to end the outrageous handouts to Big Oil – a plan Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed was “not a serious effort to address the price of gas at the pump.”

Today, McConnell and his colleagues presented their big oil agenda: a reckless expansion of offshore drilling that will leave oversight even weaker than it was before the Gulf oil disaster and have absolutely no effect on the price of gas at the pump.

Read more

Education

House Republicans Deride ‘Massive And Costly’ Federal Investment In School Meals

By Guest Blogger on May 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm

Our guest blogger is Theodora Chang, Education Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education wrapped up its work last week with a hearing on “Examining the Costs of Federal Overreach into School Meals.” The Subcommittee shortsightedly concluded that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which was signed into law late in 2010, “raises costs…and may also lead to wasted food and fewer children served.” Exactly how much of a financial impact does it have? One of the hearing’s witnesses said the following:

The impact of the proposed rule will at a minimum be $78,774 for my department which in terms of education budgets is equal to a teacher’s salary in the surrounding area…The proposed rule is essentially an unfunded mandate, which will harm my program.

Subcommittee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) derided the 2010 law, saying, “the previous Democrat Majority pursued a massive and costly expansion of the federal government’s role in child nutrition.” But the hearing conveniently omitted the real price of poor health across the nation. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act aims to curb escalating obesity rates, which cost the nation a hefty $147 billion per year in direct medical costs. In Hunter’s (CA) home state, the annual cost of diabetes is estimated to be $24 billion, and the cost of obesity is $21 billion.

Child nutrition is also a good investment because it is critical for student success in school. At a time when most states are facing budget challenges and need resources to serve students and families with the greatest need, effective hunger prevention and student nutrition programs ensure that students are ready to learn and are not stymied by hunger. Schools are ideal locations for social services like healthy meals because they have unparalleled access to low-income students and their families — they are located in the neighborhoods in which families live, are recognized and familiar community institutions, and have established relationships with students.

The Subcommittee is concerned that “the cost of a school breakfast may increase by more than 25 cents, [and the] cost of a school lunch will have increased by more than 7 cents,” but Congress has bigger challenges to tackle right now. We need our representatives to get the message and stop wasting a significant amount of time fighting against a good investment in child nutrition legislation.

Alyssa

Republican Governors Use Budget Woes To Wage War On The Arts

By Alyssa Rosenberg on May 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm

After Republican proposals to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities died in Congress this year, it might have seemed like there was a momentary lull in the fight over public funding for the arts. But at the state level, Republican governors and Republican-dominated legislatures are using difficult economic times as an excuse to slash the budgets of arts agencies and public broadcasters, or to try to eliminate them entirely.

In five states, Republican governors or legislatures have proposed either dismantling arts agencies or entirely eliminating some of their funding streams:

KANSAS: The most pitched battles are in Kansas, where in February, Gov. Sam Brownback signed an executive order dismantling the Kansas Arts Commission to make way for its replacement by a privately-funded group. That move meant Kansas will likely lose $778,200 from the National Endowment for the Arts and $437,767 in funding from the Mid-American Arts Alliance. Both organizations require states to support the arts before they’ll kick in funding. The Kansas legislature pushed back, overriding the executive order and approving $700,000 to fund the agency, but on May 10, Brownback told the entire staff of the Commission that their jobs would be eliminated in June. He has suggested he will veto the legislature’s appropriation when the budget arrives on his desk, a move that will have the same effect as the executive order.

Brownback may also line-item veto $1.5 million in state funding for public broadcasting, though the budget the legislature approved last Friday produces a $50 million surplus even with arts and broadcasting funding included.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Gov. Nikki Haley said in her State of the State address in January that “the role of South Carolina’s government in the year 2011 can no longer be to fund an Arts Commission that costs us $2.5 million. … When you release government from the things it should not be responsible for, you allow the private sector to be more creative and cost efficient.” State lawmakers essentially ignored her requests, moving forward budgets with a 6 percent funding cut and amendments that require the Commission to spend most of its funding to provide grants. Haley reaffirmed her desire to eliminate state funding for the Commission in April, raising the prospect that she will line-item veto funding for the Arts Commission and South Carolina’s educational television program, which she also targeted in her January address.

ARIZONA: Gov. Jan Brewer entirely eliminated funding for the Arizona Commission on the Arts’ general fund, though the agency still gets some money through its Trust Fund, which is supported by businesses filing fees in the state.

FLORIDA: Gov. Rick Scott initially proposed keeping the Division of Cultural Affairs alive, but declined to fund its grant programs; the state legislature sent him a budget with $2.5 million in grant funding. Scott’s still considering line-item vetoes to trim the budget further.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: The Republican-dominated House of Representatives moved to dissolve the state’s Department of Cultural Resources in March, but the Senate Finance Committee has stood behind the Department’s continued existence, though it has proposed $530,000 in cuts.

The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, which has been tracking proposals to eliminate or reorganize the organizations it represents, is also following proposals in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin to cut state arts funding by between 30 and 80 percent.

And state-level public broadcasting also remains vulnerable:

VIRGINIA: Gov. Bob McDonnell used a line-item veto to eliminate $424,000 in funding for public broadcasters to develop educational materials for the state’s public schools, efforts he said were “not core services of government.”

MAINE: Last week, Gov. Paul LePage proposed cutting all state funding for the Main Public Broadcasting Network.

NEW JERSEY: In December, Gov. Chris Christie moved to privatize the formerly public New Jersey Network—WNET, another public television outlet, may acquire NJN.

The sums of money involved in these fights are minuscule: at $11 million, New Jersey’s subsidy to the New Jersey Network is the largest appropriation at stake. Cutting funds for arts agencies and public broadcasters won’t balance state budgets. But it does give Republicans an excuse to strike a blow in the culture wars that it will be very hard for arts organizations to recover from.

Yglesias

Apparent Distance On Schematic Diagrams Matters More For Travel Decisions Than Actual Distance

By Matthew Yglesias on May 18, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Mass transit systems generally use schematic diagrams rather than geographically accurate maps. This normally has two purposes. One is to make the lines straighter and the other is to make the stations look more evenly spaced. That, in turn, is all for the sake of readability. For example, check out this geographically accurate but impossible to read map of Boston’s T:

“]

Compare that with the diagram:

This all makes sense as practice, but Zhan Guo has a new paper out looking at London which concludes that apparent distance on these schematics makes a big difference to how people plan their trips. A bigger difference, in fact, that the actual travel times. This is something planners need to think about when designing system maps.

Yglesias

Senate GOP Moving To Immunize Oil Companies From Lawsuits After They Screw Up

By Matthew Yglesias on May 18, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Lefty green stalinist types think we need more regulation of oil companies to prevent them from destroying the Gulf of Mexico with their drilling. But that’s nuts. Everyone knows America’s the most lawsuit happy country in the world. Any oil company is going to invest plenty of money in safety procedures to avoid the massive damages they’re sure to be hit with in the event of a big spill. Right? Right? Well, Kate Sheppard reports that Senate Republicans are working to eliminate that safeguard. Welcome to the “Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011″:

The measure would deem the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, located in New Orleans, the “exclusive venue” for all civil suits dealing with energy projects in the Gulf. That’s a problem because the court is stocked with judges who have financial holdings or other ties to the oil and gas industry. That means lawsuits would be relegated to a particularly sympathetic court, no matter what jurisdiction the company is based in or where the incident that prompted the suit occurred.

I feel protected and safe already.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up